Obama's Birth Certificate

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

The intent of the laws concerning presidential qualifications is to make sure that a candidate has grown up in the American experience. You think this is meaningless in the presence of a messiah. I believe it to be a very meaningful and healthy safeguard to protect the essence of America ...

In January of this year that was your view of the constitutional intent for the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement. I don't see why you imagine the candidate being a so-called 'natural born citizen' (itself a controversial issue) would necessarily tell you something about whether the candidate "has grown up in the American experience." It also wouldn't tell you whether the person appreciates "the essence of America" (whatever that is because the US is a country of immigrants) or whether the person can be relied upon to be fully committed to protecting US interests.

What if someone meets the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement but spend the first 25 formative years of their life living in a foreign country that is hostile to the US? (The other requirement is that the candidate be a US resident for at least 14 years.)

The closer I look at your reasoning, the more it becomes apparent that you're not really interested in the Constitution at all. Nor do you respect the pluralism of which the US is a living symbol. If you really cared about these things, you'd actually think about the things you say after months of people trying their best to raise your consciousness. Instead, you keep recycling half-baked platitudes that have nothing to do with anything just about every day, with very little variation as compared to the ones you posted 5 months ago.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

In January of this year that was your view of the constitutional intent for the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement. I don't see why you imagine the candidate being a so-called 'natural born citizen' (itself a controversial issue) would necessarily tell you something about whether the candidate "has grown up in the American experience." It also wouldn't tell you whether the person appreciates "the essence of America" (whatever that is because the US is a country of immigrants) or whether the person can be relied upon to be fully committed to protecting US interests.

What if someone meets the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement but spend the first 25 formative years of their life living in a foreign country that is hostile to the US? (The other requirement is that the candidate be a US resident for at least 14 years.)

The closer I look at your reasoning, the more it becomes apparent that you're not really interested in the Constitution at all. Nor do you respect the pluralism of which the US is a living symbol. If you really cared about these things, you'd actually think about the things you say after months of people trying their best to raise your consciousness. Instead, you keep recycling half-baked platitudes that have nothing to do with anything just about every day, with very little variation as compared to the ones you posted 5 months ago.

We uphold standards and values not because they are always right but because they are just and preserve "rights." In Christianity it is the natural tension between the "Law" and "mercy." The constitution is a document that tries to maintain a healthy balance between these two true but conflicting realities. That is why I support it.

This ancient question may be nonsense for you but for me it suggests the essence of a healthy free society. The balance will be further lost as the constitution becomes more and more nothing but a tool of political manipulation..

[citizenzen]

...and going... and going...

[kiwimac]

"Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit"

Elmer Fudd

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

...and going... and going...

I'm making a movie called "Invasion of the Choir People." "It is similar to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." People are invaded by an extra terrestrial virus and gradually become enchanted choir singers that greet their new messiah and leader of the planet Ob descending upon the earth in a blazing chariot. Then all these millions having been gradually taken over by this intentionally created virus make him ruler of the world and it is up to this few that have avoided becoming enchanted to save the world. I play the part of the musician having stumbled upon the right melody that when played in the correct tempo has the effect of awakening those who hear it. The quest is getting it heard before we are discovered and having our consciousness altered to become one of "them."

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by earl

Nick, I see nothing wrong with the character of a guy who refuses to kow-tow to nutcases. earl

Originally Posted by Nick_A

That is always how it is. Righteous indignation against what choir logic defines as "nutcases." This justifies being long on ridicule and short on reason related to impartial values. And who ends up losing? The people who allow themselves to sacrifice something of great value like the constitution for some petty selfishness worth about 30 pieces of silver. So be it.

I would say that someone who attempts to hold someone to laws that have been repealed and replaced with one that contains the wording, "This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;" and tries to retroactively enforce them would fit the description...

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

I'm making a movie called "Invasion of the Choir People."

I am so getting the popcorn!

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I would say that someone who attempts to hold someone to laws that have been repealed and replaced with one that contains the wording, "This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;" and tries to retroactively enforce them would fit the description...

What can i tell you other than what I've been telling you that all this is vague. Don't believe me but here is another reasonable person that is not sure one way or another:

Is Barack Obama Really a U.S. Citizen?

Obama claims he was born in Hawaii. The point is that if the long form reveals the hospital and delivering doctor, the rest is meaningless. It is arrogance and disrespect of the constitution not to release the long form that proves his claim. Nothing can be more obvious.

[kiwimac]

From the link in your post

Therefore, based on U.S. naturalization and citizenship law as I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), it's apparently possible that Barack Obama would not be a citizen of the United States if he was not born in Hawaii, one of many claims made in a filed a lawsuit last week in U.S. District Court by Philip J. Berg, former member of Pennsylvania's Democratic State Committee and former attorney general of Pennsylvania, asking the court to declare Barack Obama ineligible for the presidency. Yet, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii according to his campaign, which makes the naturalization discussion moot. FactChecker.org says that it obtained and examined Obama's actual birth certificate and it was indeed real. FactChecker also reports that a researcher "looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement for a son born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, August 13, 1961.

Bottom line: Barack Obama is indeed a U.S. Citizen. He was born on U.S. soil, which by virtue of the 14th Amendment makes him a natural-born citizen.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

From the link in your post

[/b]

Very true. If he was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen. That is the big IF.

[citizenzen]

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

What can i tell you other than what I've been telling you that all this is vague. Don't believe me but here is another reasonable person that is not sure one way or another:

What the heck is so vague about Title 8 section 1401? Do you declare it to be vague only because you seek to obfuscate it? (Nice circular argument you've got going there.)

Is Barack Obama Really a U.S. Citizen?

Obama claims he was born in Hawaii. The point is that if the long form reveals the hospital and delivering doctor, the rest is meaningless. It is arrogance and disrespect of the constitution not to release the long form that proves his claim. Nothing can be more obvious.

It doesn't matter where he was born, according to Title 8. He's a US citizen from birth due to being born to a US citizen who lived 5 years within the US, 2 or more of which were after age 14.

The article at the link you posted is confusing two different provisions for natural born status: subsection (g) applies to persons born after Dec 24, 1952. Section (h) applies to persons born before May 24, 1934.

This article and another document linked to in the article you linked to above attempt to void this part of subsection (g) through declaration and obfuscation, not by what the law states:

"This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date."

These two articles attempt to enforce laws that have been repealed. (Is that Constitutional? I really don't think so...)

[Netti-Netti]

To the best of my knowledge, there are no legal precedents with regard to the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement. How much certainty is warranted for a case outcome in the absence of a legal precedent?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Very true. If he was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen. That is the big IF.

So, you want to ignore the rest of Title 8? Blinders, anyone?

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

What the heck is so vague about Title 8 section 1401? Do you declare it to be vague only because you seek to obfuscate it? (Nice circular argument you've got going there.)
It doesn't matter where he was born, according to Title 8. He's a US citizen from birth due to being born to a US citizen who lived 5 years within the US, 2 or more of which were after age 14.

The article at the link you posted is confusing two different provisions for natural born status: subsection (g) applies to persons born after Dec 24, 1952. Section (h) applies to persons born before May 24, 1934.

This article and another document linked to in the article you linked to above attempt to void this part of subsection (g) through declaration and obfuscation, not by what the law states:

"This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date."

These two articles attempt to enforce laws that have been repealed. (Is that Constitutional? I really don't think so...)

But what about military of govt. sevice? Don't you think if it were that simple, any judge or politician would have used that argument rather than the "give us Barabbas" one? This whole issue has more loose ends in it than a cat house. The basic observation still remains. If Obama respected the constitution he would reveal all evidence including the long form of the BC not to mention college admittance records. He doesn't but seeks instead to block the intent of the constitution which is to establish natural born citizenship without loose ends. This is a dangerous lack of character that shows his intent to place himself above the constitution.